Nokia calls Wireless Warchalkers 'Thieves' 604
Mr]-[at writes "Nokie "has condemned as theft the placing of chalk symbols on walls and pavements at places where people can use wireless net access."" Ok I guess if you wanna be technical about it ;)
Well (Score:2, Funny)
Can I borrow some air from the nice people? - If I
walk past?... pretty please..... I am just a humble
human.... air... please....
Re:Well (Score:2)
Re:Well (Score:2)
Illegal chalking (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Illegal chalking (Score:5, Funny)
No, this is not theft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Does not sound like warchalking cleanly fits the definition of theft to me.
Re:No, this is not theft. (Score:2)
Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:5, Informative)
You're right, except that both the Slashdot title and the BBC title are wrong. Quote the BBC:
(emphasis mine)
So actually, what Nokia is saying is that sitting outside a company and using their bandwidth is stealing and not actually the act of warchalking.
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not how wireless works. Your house does not continually broadcast to the street and other areas "There's a house here! Here's how you get to the front door! You'll need a DHCP badge to get any service from the butler, here's one you can use...", etc, etc.
A more fitting analogy would be if you were to establish a public establishment (a bar, for example), advertise a grand opening, and then someone walks into your bar...
Kinds changes things, doesn't it? Your bartender likely has a specific policy about allowing your patrons to make 1-900 calls, the fridge is likely behind the door to the kitchen, or at least behind the bar (both are understood to be access control mechanisms) but you probably don't mind too much about the peanuts on the bar, allowing others to use the WC is a given, so is sitting on the furnature and watching the telly.
If they're doing it without authorization, then they're stealing. If they're doing it with authorization, they are your guests. Wireless (and other computerized) services offer you (as the host) a common, difinitive, simple, clear and automatic method to unambiguously differentiate between those you would consider thieves and those you would consider guests. All you have to do is use it.
Here's another one of life's little secrets; if you want people to cooperate and do what you want, you have to at least tell them what you want. If I were to visit your house, I believe I'd find ample clues as to whether or not I'm invited in, if I can grab a beer from the fridge, etc. If I need to make a phone call, I'll ask. If it has to be a 1-900 call, I'll ask that too. Your (presumed) wireless access point can (and does) answer the questions my wireless card asks, and can implement whatever policy you (as the administrator) see fit.
It's no different than assuming that people will see the actions you have taken and the steps you could have, but didn't take and deciding that you don't want people to do this. You can't expect people to read your mind.
Then in the same spirit, I would respectfully request that you do leave some signal for those of us that might misinterpret your actions.
If you don't want we accessing your AP, that's your call entirely. I have no intention to take that which you would not willingly give. But I don't read minds. If I honestly can't tell the difference between someone intentionally offering a service freely and someone inadvertently offering a service freely, I'm likely to interpret the situation in the manner which is most favorable to me. And I'd submit most people will do the same. A simple tech note in the broadcast saying "private access point" will stop me (perhaps not others) but if you won't even exercise that due dilligence, you must accept some of the blame.
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:5, Insightful)
Wireless Access Point: Of course, here you go. The company I represent has configured me to route packets for you. Have a nice day.
Nokia: Unauthorized Access!!! Thief!!!
Wireless Access Point: Uh, oh. Am I fired?
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely different. It would be more equivalent to shouting, "Hey! Will someone let me in their house?" And the person's butler (who they have given instructions to) opens the door and says, "Sure! Come on in!" There is no attempt at entering where it can be presumed that you should not. You merely requested an IP address from any source that would give you one. If someplace doesn't want "outsiders" to connect to their network, it is trivial to configure the access point to not hand them an IP. Merely turning on WEP (although completely insecure) would still show that "This network is off-limits."
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:3, Informative)
Again, if some type of security is added (like WEP), then proactive measures have to be taken to "break in"--much like building an RF scanning device would be the proactive measure that you would have to take to disarm the car alarm in you example.
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed. However, we let machines represent ourselves every day for monetary and data transactions. When a WAP boradcasts in a public medium and grants access to an arbitrary client, it is acting as a representative of the owners. Such a grant of access constitutes authorization of network use in the same way an anonymous ftp server authorizes upload or download of files to it.
Re:Slashdot and BBC article are titled wrongly (Score:2)
Well, yes. At the very least you would be trespassing and/or loitering. Many companies have protection from such theft of service.
Re:No, this is not theft. (Score:2)
Now when someone uses a wireless network they are in complete possesion of some of my bandwidth for a time. Stealing bandwidth is unlawful, and they are directing resources away from my servers. Now the chalking itself is more like helping the theif.
Try to justify it to yourselves however you want staeling is stealing, no matter how poor the security you steal from, and no matter how much the person you steal from has an abundance of what you steal..
Not Technical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not Technical (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Technical (Score:2)
Re:Not Technical (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not Technical (Score:2, Insightful)
People just want you to think of it as theft, because of the natural (or better learned) aversion to such an act.
We're focusing on the wrong question anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
They're not lawyers. They're not law makers. They're not chalkers. They probably aren't even getting chalked. So why does anybody give a flying fuck about their opinion?
Re:We're focusing on the wrong question anyway (Score:3, Funny)
Because they're Finnish!!^$@!%^#$
Dude, I said they're from Finland!!! And that's where Linus is from!!&!&^@%!
I'm not usually complaining about these things... (Score:2)
Well of course Nokia don't like it (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about it; people have started to use Warchalking as a means to advertise and propogate open wireless networks. Geeks are setting up their own networks and chalking the area themselves, allowing people to use their nodes freely. Nokia is afraid that if warchalking becomes popular, it could threaten the uptake of the forthcoming 3G mobile networks.
If Nokia made WAN gear, I'm sure they wouldn't be quite as vocal about it...
Re:Well of course Nokia don't like it (Score:3, Interesting)
(This [heise.de] more informative article is unformtunatiely in that awful language.)
Re:Well of course Nokia don't like it (Score:3, Informative)
You mean something like this:
http://www.nokia.com/phones/nokiad211/index.htm
True, it aint UMTS, but UMTS isn't available yet.
They do make WAN/WLAN gear (Score:3, Informative)
Check it out. They make Prism2-based 802.11 devices.
No 11b devices listed there, but I wouldn't be surprised that if they had classic 802.11, they have 802.11b
If WAN rather than WLAN was not a typo, they make plenty of WAN equipment too. Check their site. http://www.nokia.com/
http://www.nokia.com/phones/nokiad211/d311_spec
A lot of cellular companies see 802.11 as augmenting 3G, not competing with it. Or more properly, 3G as augmenting 802.11. 802.11 for your 'net in the cities and 3G out in the boonies.
Theft? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Theft? (Score:2, Interesting)
As humans, don't we have right to our airspace? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't Nokia put more time and effort into convincing people to secure their wireless networks? It's my airspace too! As a citizen of {insert friendly first-world nation) I would like to think that I have some right to the cancer-causing radiation that is travelling through my head. If I choose to pick it, that's up to me. If it can go through walls, it's going through my head, goddammit!
It's my airspace. These people are sending signals through our bodies. Even assuming it's 100% healthy (no trolls with stories about studies into cancer causes required), I don't have the right to attempt to listen to this signal?
Perhaps the issue is transmitting back onto these networks should be illegal, but snooping shouldn't be. Turn on the encryption, smarten up and stop bitching at (white-hat) hackers for using technology in ways it wasn't originally intended to be used. That's how development works.
Duh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:As humans, don't we have right to our airspace? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:As humans, don't we have right to our airspace? (Score:2)
Otherwise, yeah.
Re:As humans, don't we have right to our airspace? (Score:3, Insightful)
This "open door" analogy just doesn't fit.
Human being are NOT natrually pre-disposed to enter houses, whereas network devices ARE generally pre-disposed to connect to the nearest/strongest WAP.
If you install a WAP, secure it.
Then, follow the intent.
If someone purposely hacks into your network, the intent to steal is there. If a network device can/does automatically configure itself to connect, well, it's a piece of hardware... it has no intent of it's own, so there's no intent to steal.
Ignorance of the technology and how to implement it is NOT an excuse!
Right on: Public space = accessible to everyone (Score:2)
Is it theft to listen to the music comming from a car passing by? Is it theft to look into a shopping window without the intent of buying anything? If so, I'd have to agree with Nokia, otherwise they're just talking utter nonsense.
--
Facts are stupid things -- R. Reagan
Satellite (Score:2)
And I think the courts are wrong.
Secure your network. Problem solved. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're going to be a wireless 'hippy', submit your location to an online database or something.
I know places where I can plug into CAT5 or RJ45 phone lines, but I don't walk in to companies, pluggin' in.
UMTS instead of WiFi... (Score:2, Troll)
Entrapment? (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I believe that if I left a few cases of beer on the sidewalk for a few days (discounting the skunk factor) and some or all of it disappeared, it would be regarded as "Shame on me" for not securing my property, and I would have no case.
How is this different?
-JPJRe:Entrapment? (Score:2)
But if you left them in your house, and forgot to lock your front door, and someone came in and took them (then left a sign by the road saying "this house is unlocked! help yourself!") then that would be a crime.
Stuff on the Sidewalk (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how an unsecured network is any different. It is so easy to add password or other simple security that it is reasonable to presume that anybody offering network access to the neighborhood intends to do so. Of course, simple courtesy demands that one not abuse such a service--by sending out 10,0000 spams, for example.
On the other hand, it is certainly theft to break into the network, no matter how rudimentary the security.
Should be useful... (Score:4, Insightful)
Should be useful to security auditors. Get out and take a stroll around your site, and be alarmed at any chalk-up you find.
And of course, do something about it.
Re:Should be useful... (Score:3, Funny)
Given today's security climate, that must mean... erasing the chalk?
Thieves? (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing to remember is that it may be illegal to chalk in some places. On many college campuses they have made it illegal to chalk the sidewalks advertising parties, concerts, etc. Stupid, but laws are still laws.
--trb
You can't steal something i fit is protected! (Score:2, Insightful)
If a company doesn't protect it's wireless network by restricting MAC addresses, etc
How many businesses don't have a lock on the front door? Let face it, a lock won't keep EVERYBODY out, but it will kep 99.9% of people out!
Instead of wasting time and money complaining about theft, why don't these companies spend those resources implimenting wireless security. It isn't that difficult to keep the majority of would be "hackers" (and I use that term VERY loosely
Some common sence here people!
Re:You can't steal something i fit is protected! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:You can't steal something i fit is protected! (Score:2, Informative)
While you are entitled to believe this is the case, I assure you that it is not. Unfortunately, they don't lose the right to complain. Sure the insurance company may refuse to pay up for the loss, but from a legal standpoint they have every right to complain, and will.
The only thing that is changing, at least here in Europe, it corporate resposibility for damages made to a third party using their network. They have an obligation to attempt to prevent their IT infrastructure from being used for illegal activities. If it can be proven that they did not have reasonable protection, and that lack of protection lead to their network being used to attack a third party, they can be held responsible for damages to the third party, even if the attack originated outside of their network, and only used it as a rebound. A good example would be the openssl worm last week that infects then "phones home" on 2002/udp to potentially take part in DDoS. If after this, a company didn't at least block outbound traffic on 2002/udp at the firewall (if for example the server couldn't be patched straight away) then that company can be legally responsible for the (its part in) the DDoS attack.
Just like beggar marks (Score:2, Interesting)
when tramps abd beggars roamed the lands
you could find strange marks inscribed
in chalk, on pavements and walls...
Tramps would write: "generous, number 12"
or "tea and biscuits, this house"
And occasionally, "back door sometimes unlocked".
People who do not secure their networks invite theft.
But people who steal are still thieves.
"Warchalking" is not illegal - how can it be! - but it is immoral.
Go get your own IP link, you bums!
Takes one to know one (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Takes one to know one (Score:2)
Okay (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, learn how to use the right form of quotation marks
Back to the point - what is so difficult about bolting down your wireless access point? MAC address filtering is available on pretty much every AP/router, and unless you're having LAN parties every weekend and can't be bothered to add each person's card, you have no reason not to have a secured point of access.
Warchalking gave me a great idea - on Halloween, kids should bring chalk and mark the paths to houses - different symbols for "gives money", "gives soy milk", or "gives good candy"!
death to war chalking! SECURITY! (Score:3, Informative)
Most consumers will look for days attempting to get the correct piece of hardware for the cheapest possible price. Yet these same people won't even crack open the manual about the default security settings.
So if your not going to get off your dead ass and secure your wireless connection.... suffer
Warchalk is art (Score:2)
Check out his Gallery of CSS Descramblers [cmu.edu].
insecure wireless AP's? (Score:4, Insightful)
Companies can't just say, 'we're going to leave this [money, confidential documents, unprotected wireless AP] right where any chump on the sidewalk can get at them, but you can't touch them cause Nokia says it's stealing' and call it a security plan.
It used to be OK; things were too technical for most people to understand. Similarly, locking mechanisms on bank safes used to be simple; now they're as complex as any sci-fi fan could dream of. And in the computer world, there's no excuse for any security-by-complexity setup less than large-prime algorithmic encrytption.
Re:insecure wireless AP's? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the company owns the land and airspace where the wireless network reaches, people should be free to stand on public ground and use their computers. If there's a hilltop in a public park from which you can see and hear a concert, or athletic event, is it 'stealing' to sit on that hill and enjoy the entertainment? Any network administrator that allows an insecure wireless signal to be accessible from a sidewalk should know better.
No way can that concert analogy come even close. Sitting any distance away and listening to the music that drifts out from an outdoor (or indoor) concert takes nothing from the promoters, the band, nor the paying audience. That is a freebie. Using a wireless network resource clearly consumes a limited resource that *is* being payed for by the legitimate users.
As for leaving their beer on the sidewalk... just plain dumb. But, didn't anyone else's mother teach them not to take what they KNOW does not belong to them?
Yup, the network admin should know better, but that doesn't make it right to take or use what is clearly not yours. If I mistakenly leave my frontdoor unlocked, it does not entitle anyone to come into my house, use my bathroom, drink my water, use my lights or anything of mine without my permission beforehand.
Why can't a community of otherwise intelligent (?) technical individuals distinguish the difference? This *is* a matter of right and wrong. "Because it's there" works for climbing mountains, but not in this argument...
Theft By Confusion (Score:2)
To me, and while I know this analogy seems strange, this seems a lot like neighborhood garbage collection. If the guys on the garbage truck see anything near the curb, they take it. They don't know the difference between someone throwing out a chair and someone accidentally leaving a small piece of furniture outside for a few minutes. It is the responsibility of the homeowner to make sure that they don't leave anything out near the curb that the garbage men might accidentally take, not the responsibility of the garbage men to walk up to everyone's door and say, "Excuse me, ma'am, do we have permission to take this? I know you probably meant for it to be thrown out, but we thought we should wake you up to make sure".
I know that hackers (in the broad sense of the word) often say that it is the responsibility of the network administrators to secure their networks rather than the responsibility fo the hackers to not invade open networks, usually with little justification, but in this rare instance, I think it really does apply. It's the responsibility of the network administrators to secure their network that looks just like the free ones and could easily be mistaken as such, just as the it's the responsibility of the homeowner that doesn't want their piece of furniture taken by the garbage men to keep it away from the street where they would mistake it for trash.
Well, Okay... (Score:5, Funny)
I guess it is theft. Warchalkers are performing wireless security audits for free, thus stealing from themselves.
Theft? (Score:2)
That aside i arent that impressed of wireless networks inside offices. Wireless is maybe god where people move around all the time but in an office people tends to work at the same place. It has its place but today everybody and his mother is installing it without thinking about pros and cons even a single second.
Re:Theft? (Score:2)
Wireless is really cool and everything, but it's got a long way to go before it becomes a religion! Do you have your WAP in a little shrine?
Although, religion usually is wireless....
WRONG!! (Score:2)
However, if people use your access and cause havoc, different story. But still.....who left the door unlocked????
What is theft? What is permission? (Score:2)
Warchalking is not theft, using the networks they indicate may be.
You are using someone elses bandwidth, however do you have their permission.
When someone broadcasts TV or radio signals it is generally accepted they are giving you permission to use these broadcast signals.
When someone leaves a locked car in a parking lot they are not giving you permission to take their car.
Newspapers in a bin are free for the taking, those in a box accepting coins you are expected to pay.
Is an open publicly broadcasted network a locked box explicity denying without authorization, or is it a public broadcast open to all.
Re:locked car (Score:2)
Convertibles must be popular.
RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
An advisory issued by the handset maker said anyone using bandwidth without the permission of the person paying for it was simply stealing.
Now Nokia has joined the chorus of criticism by saying that anyone who sits outside an office and uses a company's wireless network to do their own web surfing is stealing.
"This is theft, plain and simple," wrote Nokia in its advisory.
The company said that anyone using a company's bandwidth without permission is reducing the amount of a valuable resource available to the workers in that organisation.
Nokia warned that if too many warchalkers log on together, the whole network inside a company could slow down.
It says anyone that actually logs in is technically a thief. That's it. It does not say that someone that leaves a chalk symbol is with that act alone a theif.
Let's pay attention to the distinctions, people!
Re:RTFA (Score:2)
and
that warchalking is part of the scene
and
the people writing the symbols are often the ones logging into the networks (though that last comment is mostly suggested by the article and not explicitely written).
They would not notice? (Score:5, Funny)
They would not noitce, 200 people sitting on the sidewalk outside their building with laptops??
Elp
Not theft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not theft (Score:2)
Basically just sitting out in the hallway are free phones, I don't see how this is much different from a broadcast network.
Nokia has vested interests here.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure everyone is aware that Nokia isn't without a vested interest in what's going on here right? If the concept of freely available or at least tolerated wireless 'borrowing' catches on, it -will- hurt the adoption of horribly overpriced 3G solutions which they have an extremely large investment in seeing through. In many ways, a decentralized wireless infrastructure makes a lot more sense and it is feasible with things like 802.11 and the derivative technologies that will happen.
It is definately in their self-interest to make this activity heavily illegal, but everyone should remember they are far from a casual onlooker.
Theft? (Score:2)
Hmmm...I would think that warchalking would be closer to vandalism than theft. But then again, this isn't much different in my opinion than what happened to napster.
Wireless Warchalkers call Nokia Idiots (Score:2)
'Crime' is basically whatever those bozos in congress say it is - for instance, tuning into and listening to analog cell phone conversations that come thru the wall of your house by using an old tv uhf tuner is a crime, because the US law says so. The law says so because the cell phone industry lobbied congress to make it so, so they could tell their customers, "Your conversations a re completely private, as guarenteed by federal law".
Good lord, you won't believe what people talk about when they *think* they're having a private conversation - drug deals, endless babblings about relationships. I actually heard this yahoo call his wife from the truck and say, "Honey, I'm in desperate need of a blow job".
Well, they have a point (Score:2)
It's not like cable TV, where your decoding a signal doesn't take away from the service I paid for for myself. It isn't legal, but it's not hurting me. Ironically, it's kind of the exact opposite - stealing my service hurts me, but it doesn't hurt my ISP, because they already allocated the bandwidth to me and they're being compensated for it. Stealing cable TV doesn't hurt me, but it does hurt the cable TV company (you're depriving them of the revenue they're entitled to for stringing the cable past your house and plugging you in).
As for my own wireless, I WEP it and keep the network closed. I have yet to see chalk in front of my house (I do see a lot of open networks in my neighborhood lately), but if I were sufficiently motivated to set up a firewall between my base station and LAN I'd proably open it up. I just lack the time or motivation. Having a 4-month-old has a strange ability to play havoc with your technical priorities...
Re:Well, they have a point (Score:2)
If these companies would secure their wireless network they would not have this problem.
What about... (Score:2)
And you wonder why they call OSS people theives.. (Score:2)
Now something like this Nokia article comes along and what do we do:
1) Play the 133t card 'Well if their network is that insecure they deserv to have bandwidth stolen
2) Play the Word game '***TECHNICALLY** its not stealing because of x,y,z'
3) Play the They can afford it card 'Well Nokia charges too much so they cant complain'
Its pathetic and its beneath us, if we dont want to be preceived as theivs lets not act like them..
Sorry for the rant, my 2cents..
Public Kiosks/Public Wireless (Score:2)
I put a computer, hooked to my company's internal network, on the front steps of the company. It's just sitting there with the screen on the Windows desktop. No keyboard, no mouse.
All of a sudden, someone comes along, plugs in a keyboard and starts using the service. Should I be mad? Is he an instant theif?
What's the legislation here, folks? What determines when something that is publically accessible is privately controllable? There has to be some point at which breaking past certain barriers is considered "illegal". If said computer on the front steps had a fence around it with a lock and a security login program on the screen, breaking past that seems a bit more illegal to me than simply coming along and using a very open resource.
At some point, things that are private become public, too. Sidewalks, for instance. Maintained by private companies and people and available for public use. Defining that point is necessary, especially for wireless due to its nature of not staying between visible barriers.
Our response to "nokie" (Score:3, Funny)
You have to wonder... (Score:2)
If I left my car unlocked and with the windows down and my stereo gets stolen, the cops would tell me it was my own fault for leaving the car unsecured and probably not bother looking for the thief. So I think it should be the same with these companies. The FBI should tell them to secure their network and only come to them if someone forces their way in.
Using unlicensed bandwidth (Score:2)
When using unlicensed bandwidth you're obligated to not cause interference and you must accept interference from any source.
Does that not make it the WAP owner's obligation to take any steps necesssary to live with my interference? He has no more rights to that bandwidth than I do and he should take proper steps to assure he won't be affected by other operators.
My use of an open WAP isn't exactly the same as plain old RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) but I would certainly think that it places initial & prime responsibility on the equipment operator. Traditional steps would be to alter power levels & use directional antennas. The next step was frequency hopping & spread spectrum techniques. Use of digital techniques for security are a logical next step.
If I were performing a wireless transfer of data between my PDA & my laptop while in a public place should I demand that a nearby WAP operator shut down his equipment because he was interfering with me? My rights to that spectrum are just as strong as his, and the fact that another's use might be for business whereas mine might be casual has no bearing. One reason for creating the unlicensed frequencies was to allow development of inexpensive & affordable equipment that requires no licensing of RF frequencies.
What About Deliberately Open Nodes? (Score:2)
Do they know what "unregulated" means? (Score:2)
I mean, how stupid can these people be? for a metaphore, imagine the 'commons' grazing land for cows or whatever (except practicaly unlimited in size). It's like nokia claming that people are stealing their cattle's food because you ride your cows in with their heard. or something.
nokia is stifling a move in the right direction (Score:2)
basically, the future will see a free inter-networking of wireless networks.
each network will, like the freenet, act as a router to carry on to the next network
and even pdas (once battery life and antennae become more efficient) will route,
allowing for chained connections in tunnels and other dead areas.
companies like nokia will make money on the devices but not the services.
I envision a future where there are no big towers, just lots and lots of nodes.
this is somewhat similar to computer clustering:
lots of small wireless routers can be more efficient than a handful of towers.
So, how do you guys justify this? (Score:2)
There seem to be a lot of people here defending this use of someone's wireless network. How are you justifying this? I'll be the first to admit that legality doesn't always coincide with morality, and that words like "thief" and "steal" are used far more often than they should be. For instance, I don't think that copying software or MP3s or even ideas is "stealing" -- because the copying doesn't deprive the original owner of the right to use the software or idea.* In other words, (if you are familiar with "natural law") the resource is abundant, not scarce. However, bandwidth really is scarce!! Many small businesses (the usual kind that have open APs) have a shared T1 or worse, and some pay metered bandwidth. Unless we can determine that they really do have an excess of bandwidth or that they don't mind us using their service, how can we possibly justify this kind of thing?
Some forms of illegal activity (ie, copying software) can be morally justified with a cogent argument, but we should really be careful not to let that extend to thoughts like, "Anything I like doing is moral in cyberspace."
* I know this is a pretty glib argument, but that's not really the subject here.
Re:So, how do you guys justify this? (Score:2)
Personally, the onus is on the owner of property to spend _some_ effort in protecting it.
Case in point: If I leave my television on my lawn, unlocked, it'll get stolen. The police won't do a thing about it, because they will contend that I put so little effort into protecting my personal property that it must not have been worth that much to me. They won't consider their own effort worth the cost of protecting my property since I did not do a minimum amount of work to protect it myself.
As a warchalker, you can't tell for sure if somebody is actually providing a wifi access point au gratis or if some lazy admin at some company forgot to secure the wireless network. Is the network legal or illegal to connect to? Should the onus really be on the part of the connector?
The owner of the property has a responsibility to use a reasonable amount of effort and care in securing their own property; or else the rest of society spends alot of money and time protecting the property of people who are too lazy or incompetant to do so. Ass we both know, humans dont like freeloaders, so I think in this case, people are right to whine and bitch about the wifi network owners laziness, incompetnance, or lack of education.
Security tip for wireless administrators... (Score:2)
I mean damn, how much more obvious do network admins need this to be. If you see war chalking symbols at your location you know that other people know you are wide open. So FIX it and stop yammering about theft of service. It's illegal to break into people's houses, but people still put locks on their doors. It's called common sense.
I mean really, they should be securing their network in the first place. Not doing so is simply irresponsible, and to get pissed off at people roaming onto their network is just passing the buck.
Lessons I learned in the Army (Score:2, Insightful)
This might sound harse to the uninitiated, but the philosophy was simple: thievery is the fault of the victim. If everyone would secure their belongings properly, there would be no theft (because there would be nothing lying around to steal). While admittedly simplistic (hey, the Army thought it up, how complex could it be?) it is a philosophy not without merit.
People who install wireless networks should secure them, lest someone come along and take advantage of them. Of course, many will probably need to get pt'd a little before they learn that lesson. But you can't blame the drills for giving "corrective training" to bring your attention to the problem.
WarChalking is not theft! (Score:3, Insightful)
How is WarChalking theft? It is not! This demonisation of WarChalkers in the mass media is akin to the ignorance of the distinction between Hackers and Crackers.
I am a Computer Professional; I am also a WarChalker. I am not a criminal or thief. I have never stolen bandwidth or illegally accessed a computer.
The first issue to remember is WiFi is public spectrum it belongs to everybody not to a particular company simply because they've bought an Access Point.
Secondly most WarChalkers provide internet access via a WarChalked WiFi Access Point out of community spirit or as part of expermental community wireless projects.
At first it appeared to me that some technically ignorant Nokia marketing droid had simple jumped on the sensationaist anti-WarChalking bandwagon as paraded in the mass-media.
However as I write this it is becoming increasing obvious to me that this attack is more insipid. Nokia's problem is that cooperative community based Wireless Access Projects run by WarChalkers are competition that will in future destroy their existing business models.
What about me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Asking a wireless server for access and receive the requested access is against the law.
Stealing my right to understand how a device works and build my own device (just the way I like: "Do it by yourself") IS NOT against the law.
Stealing my right to buy a CD (cdda compatible) and play it in the ONLY cdda compatible device I have IS NOT against the law.
Stealing my right to develop my own software and do with it whatever I want, even give it way for anybody who wants even see its source IS NOT against the law.
Stealing the right of a country to solve its own problems, and decide it's time to change its president (dictator or not), without the agreement of the proper organization responsible for these cases IS NOT agaisnt the law.
Accepting money and gifts from big companies to submit new laws following thir interests, instead of the people interests and freedom, IS NOT against the law.
I hope to still have the right to disagree with things that I think that is REALLY wrong and MUST, or else we will become slaves of laws that were created by our own legal and political representants, representing others interests.
Re:Theft? (Score:2)
Yeah, I agree it *is* silly...
Re:How is it different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because at the stop light, you don't get to pick which CD they're playing. When connecting to someone's wireless network, at some point you're going to be making use of their resources (DHCP server, intranet, bandwidth, firewall...whatever).
Not saying I agree with Nokia's description, but there is a difference between your stop-light analogy and warchalking.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:How is it different? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is it different? (Score:2)
I suppose, being rather pedantic here, that the new listener being present would "reduce" the amount of music the original listener could hear simply because he might be absorbing some of the echo.
Anyway, I think the original analogy was rather flawed. It's not the listening that's really the problem but that the new user has pulled up in another car with a loud stereo that is drowning out the original car's sound system.
Re:How is it different? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I can certainly make a request.
When connecting to someone's wireless network, at some point you're going to be making use of their resources (DHCP server, intranet, bandwidth, firewall...whatever).
A perfect example of an automated request process!
Now, if you do not wish to honor my requests, for songs OR for bandwidth, then stop granting my requests. Simple as that.
Re:How is it different? (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't see any difference between the pool and an insecure wireless LAN, so I'd have to think the WLAN is an attractive nuisance and therefore the responsibility of the owner, not the so-called thief.
Re:How is it different? (Score:2)
Re:How is it different? (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporate Internet connections are frequently bandwidth metered or bandwidth limited. "Burstable" connections are where the price increases as usage increases. Your usage increases bandwidt and thus has the potential for increasing their cost.
Re:How is it different? (Score:5, Insightful)
In a traditional (wired) LAN, if I were to install rj45 jacks in the outside surface of my building, at ground level, and someone walked up with a laptop and plugged in AND my dhcp server happily gave them an address and allowed them to use my resources -- is that really "theft"?
I would say no. I have (perhaps unwittingly) created a public terminal and allowd people to share my network. Perhaps I didn't *intend* for unauthorized people to use it (maybe I had the idea that a salesman could stop by and download something without having to go up to their office, or some other equally stupid idea), but then again, they didn't *steal* the ip-address, nor did they *force* my router to accept their traffic. I gave it to them without bothering to validate their identity... Stupid me.
Now, how is wireless access any different? If you are stupid enough to setup a WAP without restricting it by MAC address and/or using encryption, then you essentially have an open rj45 port on your wall. It would be theft if I asked for a dhcp address, you said no, and then I tried to hack my way in anyways.
As another analogy, if I leave my car open and you get in and drive off, you're stealing because you deprived me of the use of my car. If I leave my car open and you hop in the back seat without my permission, you're guilty of trespass. If, on the other hand, you see a city bus with has no place to pay fares and no indications that you need to do so, how is it stealing if you get on and ride it? It costs the city money to cart your butt around... but if they're too dumb to charge you or keep you off, that's their fault.
An unprotected WAP is like a big flashing neon VACANCY sign. Please don't try to pass YET MORE STUPID ANAL-RETENTIVE LAWS to make it a punishable-by-finger-removal crime... instead, learn how to secure your network and make your sysadmin do their job!
Re:From dictionary.com ... (Score:2)
Re:From dictionary.com ... (Score:2)
This is theft..
Re:What about other "escaping" resources? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as leaving your door unlocked doesn't make it ok to come in, not protecting the network doesn't mean it's ok to exploit it. Administrators should secure wireless networks with extra care, but it is not the responsibilty of warchalkers to exploit that.
All that being said, Warchalking is a hell of a lot more innocuous way of finding out that you are wide open than, say, corporate espionage. I came in for an interview at a company that operating in a single suite on the third floor of a building. I noticed a warchalking mark outside the premises and thought 'some company's administrator needs to get it together'. I get the job and find out they have an access point wide open. They had it carefully positioned in the middle of their small suite so they would get best reception. I mentioned what measures I thought should be taken and they said they didn't want to deal with the hastle on employee laptops and that they *knew* the wireless wouldn't extend beyond their walls. Some months later I was able to show them that I could connect from the ground outside the building, and then they let me enable 40-bit WEP. about as secure as a wet tissue, but better than nothing.